716 M.

Olbrycht: Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran

Sonja Plischke: Die Seleukiden und Iran. Die seleukidische Herrschaftspolitik in den
stlichen Satrapien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2014. XVII, 408 S. 33 Abb. 1 Kte. (Classi-
ca et Orientalia. 9.).
This substantial volume by Sonja Plischke (hereinafter P.) addresses a difficult
and multi-faceted subject: the history of the Seleucids in Iran. It has been written
on the basis of P.s doctoral dissertation, which was compiled under the supervi-
sion of J. Wiesehfer at Kiel, Germany. In the first two parts of her book (1
172), P. offers the reader a vast array of selected problems of Seleucid history
including its administrative structures, urbanisation and the foundation of new
cities, mintage, and religious cults. The next part deals with the continuous his-
torical narrative from Seleucus I to Antiochus IV (173ff).
P. lists two approaches to the presentation of the history of the eastern part of
the Seleucid Empire (5): a diachronic study (diachrone Betrachtung), and a
chronological approach (chronologische Hinsicht), but she seems to have
muddled up her terminology, as she regards the former as an account independ-
ent of time, which should therefore be called a synchronic approach, for the
description of selected aspects of the Empire, e.g. administration. The latter ap-
proach deals with historical events and developments, and is therefore diachronic.
At the very outset P. refers to J. Droysen, who once lectured at Kiel and whose
profoundly politicised uvre made a strong impact on research on the Seleucids
and other post-Alexandrian dynasties, not least for its laudatory attitude to Prus-
sian militarism, which left a residue in scholars descriptions of Hellenistic king-
doms and principalities.
P. is quite right to point out the paucity of sources on the Seleucid period in
Iran. The principal narrative is by Polybius in his Histories. The inscriptions are
an invaluable resource, and it would probably be worthwhile to augment those
she discusses with the Aramaic and Greek inscriptions from Armenia, a land
closely connected with the Seleucids.
In the chapter entitled Vorgeschichte und Ausgangslage P. discusses the wars
of the Diadochi and the Seleucid conquest of Babylonia, but devotes only three
pages (1921) to the latter, a key issue. Even more curiously, there is no sub-
chapter on the Seleucid conquest of Iran. No attempt is made to show how a
hitherto weak Seleucus managed to vanquish the powerful Antigonus and Deme-
trius in Babylonia, while at the same time conquering Iran in a war against
Nicanor. P. expends just a single sentence to note that Seleucus overcame Antig-
onus with the support of the native population of Babylonia (20). Unfortunately
this fundamental issue is not addressed in the books Part III either, which gives a
more detailed description of Seleucid rule in Iran. The opening sentence of chap-
ter III.1 (Nachdem sich Seleucus zwischen 312 v.Chr. und 308 v.Chr. in den
Besitz von Babylonien gebracht hatte . . . wandte er sich den stlichen Gebieten
Baktrien und Indien zu, 173) gives the impression that Seleucus swooped
straight down on Bactria from Babylonia. But in between them there is the
whole of Iran. It is hard to understand why P. failed to notice the main develop-
ment from the point of view of the books subject Seleucus conquest of Iran in
311308, and his subjugation of Media, Susiana, Persis, and Parthia. This is the
crucial phase of his conquest, the stage at which the foundations of the new state
were laid. On p. 328 P. observes that the first two decades of Seleucid rule were

GNOMON 8/88/2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716
Generiert durch Universitts- & Landesbibliothek Mnster, am 28.12.2016, 17:55:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulssig.
 M. Olbrycht: Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran 717

the key phase in their history, but in fact she marginalises the initial period.
Moreover, she says nothing about Seleucus attitude to the Iranians. Diodorus
19.92.5 claims that Seleucus employed a special attitude to the Western Iranians,
respecting their aspirations. P. mentions this passage (20, n. 144), but only as
evidence for Seleucus conquest of Western Iran, with no attempt to use it in a
discussion of the way relations between Seleucus and the native population
worked.1 This rather superficial kind of treatment of the sources recurs many
times throughout the book.
P. divides the main body of her subject into two parts: (II: Structural condi-
tions of Seleucid rule/Strukturelle Bedingungen der seleukidischen Herrschaft,
and III: The exercise of power/Herrschaftsausbung). This bipartite approach
seems warranted, but the internal subdivisions within these two parts are in part
inconsistent.
In the part entitled Strukturelle Bedingungen (22172) P. analyses several issues in de-
tail. She rightly stresses the role of Antiochus I as ruler of the Upper Satrapies and then
moves on to a discussion of the ruling elite (die herrschende Gesellschaft). She compares
the situation under the Seleucids with that under Alexander regarding the participation of
Iranians in government; however, her assessment of Alexanders policy is erroneous. Con-
trary to her opinion on p. 32, we have to acknowledge that in 330323 Alexander estab-
lished what was effectively a novel practice by his policy of bringing in non-Macedonians
into the ranks of his Companions (hetairoi). It was not a question of individual instances,
as had happened under Philip II, but a phenomenon on a mass scale, in connection with
the creation of the Iranian Companion cavalry, which consisted of hundreds of cavalry-
men. The establishment of Iranian units of Companions and analogous units of phalanx
infantry was envisaged by 324. P. fails to note this aspect and ignores the work already
done on it.2 She quite rightly lists the dynastic names of the Seleucids, with the name
Apame or Apames recurring several times among them (44f). P. heavily relies on the work
of A. Mehl (2003) and T. Brggemann (2010), but does not go beyond them. She splits up
her discussion of the satrap Andragoras into two parts (4849 and 226229). P. erroneous-
ly attributes the hypothesis of Andragoras Iranian origin to A. Bivar. In fact it was first
put forward by I. Gershevitch,3 who is not cited by Bivar.4 Of the Iranian magistrates she
mentions Artaxias and Zariadres, strategoi in Armenia under Antiochus III (p. 49). They
are given two sentences, but no consideration of their background and connections with

1
On Seleucus rise to power in Iran see M. J. Olbrycht, Creating an Empire: Iran and
Middle Asia in the Policy of Seleucus I, in: V. P. Nikonorov (Ed.), Central Asia from the
Achaemenids to the Timurids, Sankt-Petersburg 2005, 231235. This article is not cited by
P.
2
See, e.g., M. J. Olbrycht, The military reforms of Alexander the Great during his cam-
paign in Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, in: C. Galewicz et al. (Eds.), Miscellanea
Eurasiatica Cracoviensia, Krakw 2007, 309321; Curtius Rufus, the Macedonian Mutiny
at Opis and Alexanders Iranian Policy in 324 BC, in: J. Pigo (Ed.), The Children of
Herodotus. Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres, Newcastle 2008, 231
252; An Admirer of Persian Ways: Alexander the Greats Reforms in Parthia-Hyrcania
and the Iranian Heritage, in: T. Daryaee et al. (Eds.), Excavating an Empire. Achaemenid
Persia in Longue Dure, Costa Mesa 2014, 3762.
3
Cited in R. Ghirshman, Un ttradrachme dAndragoras de la Collection de M.
Foroughi, in: D. Kouymjian (Ed.), Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy
and History, Beirut 1974, 7.
4
A. D. H. Bivar, Andragoras: Independent Successor of the Seleucids in Parthia, in: V.
P. Nikonorov (Ed.), Central Asia from the Achaemenids to the Timurids, Sankt-
Petersburg 2005, 213.

GNOMON 8/88/2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716
Generiert durch Universitts- & Landesbibliothek Mnster, am 28.12.2016, 17:55:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulssig.
718 M. Olbrycht: Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran

the Orontids and Achaemenid traditions. Her presentation of this group does not include
the rulers of Persis, fratarakas who started as Seleucid representatives in Frs.1
One of the books biggest problems is the geographical terminology. After
discussing western Iran P. moves on to Zentralasien (6768). It is hard to under-
stand why there is no discussion of eastern Iran. P. defines Zentralasien as Bac-
tria, Sogdiana, Chorasmia, Margiana, as well as Drangiana, Arachosia, and Areia,
die sich als Teile der Fergana in die Geographie Zentralasiens einbetten (68).
This is a gross misunderstanding, as we do not know what P. had in mind writing
about Fergana. Namely, she invokes H. Parzinger,2 who is cited on p. 68 on the
Fergana cultures of the Early Iron Age as belonging to Mittelasien, not Zen-
tralasien. Perhaps P. has adopted Zentralasien as a calque from the English
name Central Asia, since she refers to the work of F. Holt, who defines Central
Asia as the region between Lake Baykal and the Hindukush.3 However, the
German term Zentralasien has a different meaning in the traditional German
publications. H. Parzinger, oft cited by P., uses the term Mittelasien for the
territories denoted in English as Central Asia, in other words part of Kazakhstan,
Chorasmia, Sogdiana, Bactria, and southern Turkmenistan.4 For him Zentrala-
sien is the region further to the east, from south-western China to Mongolia.
The English terminology is, of course, exerting a strong influence, and the more
recent German publications5 resort to Zentralasien for the region hitherto
known as Mittelasien; nonetheless P. has not defined her position on the termi-
nology, which makes it hard to follow her.
Sub-chapter II.1.3.2.4 comprises a discussion of Bactria, followed by the history of
Zentralasien in sub-chapter II.1.3.2.5 (75), which starts with a description of Arachosia.
In the academic literature Arachosia is generally treated as belonging to the eastern Iranian
lands, or to the Iranian-Indian borderland. In the paragraph on Arachosia P. also embarks
on a detailed account of Alexanders campaign in Bactria, and then she goes straight on to
sub-chapter II.1.3.5 on Mesopotamia and Babylonia. There is no account of the lands of
Iran here, including Areia and Margiana! Is the absence of numbers 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 in the
numbering of the sub-chapters a slip on the part of the publisher, or the author herself?
There is more recent work available on the Aramaisation of Mespotamia (82) than
Funcks 1984 publication.6 Concerning the identification of the Ochos and the Oxos rivers
(119), there are some recent publications available.7 In the sub-chapter on the Seleucid
urbanisation policy (II.2.3: 94ff) P. uses the term Ostiran to denote Areia, Arachosia,
Drangiana, and Paropamisadai. But in II.1. she puts these lands into Zentralasien. Bactria
and Sogdiana are now treated separately. In the sub-chapter on financial administration
(139ff) Bactria is no longer part of Central Asia, but eastern Iran. P. attempts to give a

1
J. Wiesehfer, Frataraka, in: Encyclopedia Iranica online, accessed December 16,
2015.
2
H. Parzinger, Die frhen Vlker Eurasiens, Mnchen 2006, 662.
3
F. Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria, Leiden 1988, 1127.
4
Parzinger, op. cit, 2629.
5
Cf. J. Paul, Zentralasien, Frankfurt 2012, 1517.
6
See J. Oelsner, 30 Thesen zum Thema Aramisierung Hellenisierung Iranisierung
Babyloniens, in: A. Luther et al., (Eds.), Getrennte Wege? Kommunikation, Raum und
Wahrnehmung in der Alten Welt (Oikumene 2), Frankfurt 2007, 218227.
7
See, e.g., M. J. Olbrycht, Some Remarks on the Rivers of Central asia in Antiquity, in:
T. Jackson et al. (Eds.), Gaudeamus igitur. Sbornik statey k 60-letiyu A.V. Podosinova,
Moskva 2010, 302309.

GNOMON 8/88/2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716
Generiert durch Universitts- & Landesbibliothek Mnster, am 28.12.2016, 17:55:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulssig.
 M. Olbrycht: Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran 719
synopsis of the research done on the Seleucid coinage. The subject of her next sub-chapter
is the royal cult and Seleucid religious policy (159ff).
Part III, the next major component of P.s monograph (173ff) deals with the
history of Seleucid rule in the East. Her treatment of what is known as the Seleu-
cid Era an important time of change mentioned in n. 1 on p. 173 is cursory. P.
goes on to discuss the coins issued by Sophytos, including the specimens depict-
ing a male domestic fowl (176ff). We may guess that Sophytos dominions were
located in Paropamisadai, a region which P. does not mention. She cites a num-
ber of theories put forward by other authors on the symbolism of the fowl on
these coins, including an Indian derivation and a symbol of Hermes. Then P.
states that it was probably a Bactrian symbol, but observes that there is a want of
sources and possibility for an in-depth interpretation (zum heutigen Zeitpunkt
fehlen noch die Mglichkeiten bzw. Quellen: p. 177). But there is a noteworthy
possibility. Aristophanes comedy The Birds has several references to this bird as
the symbol of the king of Persia and indeed of Persia itself (lines 274278, 483
487, 707). In one of them Peisthetaerus talks of the cock, who governed the
Persians before all other monarchs, before Darius and Megabazus. Its in
memory of his reign that he is called the Persian bird (transl. Eugene ONeill,
Jr.). In addition there are many references in the Avesta to the cock as a sacred
bird, the vanquisher of demons and enemies. It is thus quite clear that Sophytos
was resorting to a paramount Iranian symbol in his bid to gain the sympathy of
the inhabitants of his realm.
The often reiterated claim that Seleucus was the only one of the well-known
Companions of Alexander not to repudiate his Iranian wife is false. We simply
dont know much about what happened to most of these couples. In addition
there was Artonis and Eumenes, another couple whose relationship proved per-
manent but forgotten by historians (Nep. Eum. 13; Plut. Eum. 19). P. sees Seleu-
cus wedlock with Apame as a Greek-Iranian marriage which was significant for
Seleucus eastern policy and exerted a favourable influence on the attitude of the
Greek colonists and veterans. The snag is that Seleucus was a Macedonian, and in
Bactria the rift between Greeks and Macedonians was exceptionally precipitous,
as evidenced by the rebellions of the Greek colonists in 325 and 323. Smoothing
over the cracks between Greeks and Macedonians on this count leads to unwar-
ranted conclusions. The attitude of the Greeks of Bactria-Sogdiana remained
fairly hostile to Alexander and the Macedonian Diadochi (196197).
A more interesting and persuading relation comes in chapter III.2 on Antio-
chus II and Seleucus II (204ff). In her discussion on early Parthia P. refers to the
work of B. Jacobs and his identification of the Uzboi with the Ochos.1 P. fre-
quently invokes Jacobs rather superficial study, which does not help her formu-
late original conclusions. On p. 239 P. reproduces the arguments about the Par-
thians alleged subjection to the Seleucids right until the conquest of Babylonia in
141 B.C., proof of which is supposed to be provided by the Parthians in the

1
B. Jacobs, Parthien Von der seleukidischen Provinz zum unabhngigen Knigreich,
in: U. Hackl et al. (Eds.), Quellen zur Geschichte des Partherreiches, Gttingen 2010, 32
33. Jacobs identifies the Ochos as the Uzboi, but does not mention my earlier identifica-
tion of the Ochos with the Uzboi published in Parthia et ulteriores gentes, Munich 1998,
74.

GNOMON 8/88/2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716
Generiert durch Universitts- & Landesbibliothek Mnster, am 28.12.2016, 17:55:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulssig.
720 M. Olbrycht: Plischke, Die Seleukiden und Iran

Seleucid army. P. fails to notice that this evidence does not apply to the Parthians
but to the Dahae, whose reputation as mercenaries was well-known.
The claim that Arsaces invaded Rhagai (in Media) and changed its name to Ar-
sakia is an error based on a misunderstanding. The note (n. 460, p. 240) suggests
that P. has confused Rhagai/Arsakia in Media with Asaak in Astauene places
hundreds of kilometres away from each other. Note 461 on p. 240 contains an-
other mix-up: the city of Dareum in Apavortene (misnamed Apavarktikene) is
identified as Qarah Sikh Tappeh in Iranian Gorgan, on the basis of Isid. Stathmoi
13 and B. Jacobs.1 However, Jacobs quite rightly suggests that this place is Abi-
vard in Turkmenistan, and only mentions that in Y. Kianis opinion (Parthian
Sites in Hyrcania, Berlin 1982, 47f) it was located in Iranian Gorgan. P. is more
at home with a review of the reigns of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV.
The last part of P.s monograph is the Fazit (315ff). The claim that the Seleu-
cids modelled their apparel exclusively on the Macedonian traditions is not con-
vincing (318). The monarchs diadem was an Iranian emblem.2 In the monetary
iconography there were elements addressed to the Iranian population, as P. has
already admitted earlier, e.g. the figure of Apollo with arrows, which of course
also appealed to the Greeks and Macedonians.
The book contains illustrations of coinage. Its indexes facilitate reading it.
There is an abundant list of works cited, but it might be worthwhile pointing out
some items that are missing.3 P. demonstrates erudition and advanced skills in
her scrutiny of Greek inscriptions, cuneiform texts, and Graeco-Roman historio-
graphic sources. However, she embarked on a challenging task. Usually she stops
short at an attempt to summarise existing research. Certainly the book may have
profited from a more narrowly focused approach. Even if there yet remain many
unanswered questions, this book opens the path for further fruitful investigation
of the Seleucids.
Rzeszw Marek Jan Olbrycht

Alexander Baumann: Freiheitsbeschrnkungen der Dekurionen in der Sptantike. Hildes-

heim/Zrich/New York: Olms 2014. VII, 231. (Sklaverei. Knechtschaft. Zwangsarbeit.
12.) 39,80 .
Die vorliegende Monographie geht aus einer an der Universitt Trier angenom-
menen rechtshistorischen Dissertation hervor, die im Rahmen des DFG-
Graduiertenkollegs Sklaverei Knechtschaft und Frondienst Zwangsarbeit
geschrieben worden ist. Der Band umfat 231 Seiten, bestehend aus Vorwort,
Einfhrung, Einleitung, fnf Kapiteln und Schlu. Abgerundet wird er durch ein

1
B. Jacobs, Verwaltung, in: U. Hackl et al. (Eds.), op. cit., 86.
2
M. J. Olbrycht, The Diadem in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic Periods, in: Anabasis.
Studia Classica et Orientalia 5, 2014, 177187.
3
These would include N. Sekunda, Boxus the Persian and the Hellenization of Persis,
in: C. Tuplin (Ed.), Persian Responses, Swansea 2007, 225237 (on the history of Persis);
M. J. Olbrycht, Iranians in the Diadochi Period, in: V. Alonso Troncoso, E.M. Anson
(Eds.), After Alexander. The Time of the Diadochi (323281 BC), Oxford, Oakville 2013,
159182.

GNOMON 8/88/2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.17104/0017-1417-2016-8-716
Generiert durch Universitts- & Landesbibliothek Mnster, am 28.12.2016, 17:55:08.
Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulssig.